4.6 Article

Composition, Diversity, and Origin of the Bacterial Community in Grass Carp Intestine

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030440

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2009CB118705]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Freshwater Ecology and Biotechnology [2011FB07]
  3. earmarked fund for China Agriculture Research System [CARS-46-08]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gut microbiota has become an integral component of the host, and received increasing attention. However, for many domestic animals, information on the microbiota is insufficient and more effort should be exerted to manage the gastrointestinal bacterial community. Understanding the factors that influence the composition of microbial community in the host alimentary canal is essential to manage or improve the microbial community composition. In the present study, 16S rRNA gene sequence-based comparisons of the bacterial communities in the grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idellus) intestinal contents and fish culture-associated environments are performed. The results show that the fish intestinal microbiota harbors many cellulose-decomposing bacteria, including sequences related to Anoxybacillus, Leuconostoc, Clostridium, Actinomyces, and Citrobacter. The most abundant bacterial operational taxonomic units (OTUs) in the grass carp intestinal content are those related to feed digestion. In addition, the potential pathogens and probiotics are important members of the intestinal microbiota. Further analyses show that grass carp intestine holds a core microbiota composed of Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, and Actinobacteria. The comparison analyses reveal that the bacterial community in the intestinal contents is most similar to those from the culture water and sediment. However, feed also plays significant influence on the composition of gut microbiota.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available